145 Responses

What the attack on Malala makes clear is that this is really a battle over education. A repressive mindset has been allowed to flourish in Pakistan because of the madrassa system set up by power-hungry clerics. It’s a deeply rooted indoctrination, and it sickens me to see ancient religious traditions undermined by a harsher form of religion barely a generation old. These madrassa, or religious schools headed by clerics, are the breeding ground of Islamic radicalism. The clerics don’t teach critical thinking. Instead, they disseminate hate. These clerics are raising merchants of hatred who believe in a very right-wing and radical Islam, to hail people like Osama bin Laden and Mumtaz Qadri as heroes. They train children how to use guns and bombs, and how not to live but to die.

Putting on my devil's advocate beanie, I believe Michael Cox meant well. He's a bit a WMFOCA, or White Male Feminist Of a Certain Age. My old man came from a similar neck of the woods, albeit a bit more twisted. Just ask Mr Slack about my old man's treatment of women. I think you'll agree then that Mr Cox is the more moderate libertine.

Hapless opinion pieces by silly old men are a price we pay for a free press

The paper (which is probably being run by people that find this crap as puke inducing as I do) could just spike all the racist and bigoted articles as they appear.

That they don't is significant - it's their *job* to scare us with the "other" - that can be Muslims, beneficiaries or gangs, but our rulers need some sort of flow of othering stories to keep people scared and compliant.

Encouraged at various times by the British and the Americans (why we have a Khyber Pass Rd), who found a culture where bribing the chiefs and mullahs with cash, guns and boys was a highly convenient way to forward their geopolitical goals.

I wondered which thread I should post a note that Paul Henry's Aussie gigs been cancelled, I'm pretty sure this is it? So, that's at least one Kiwi John Key can claim has returned.

With the appointment of Don Brash yes-man Richard Long (the long-time Dom editor, not the newscaster) to the TVNZ board, it's quite plausible Paul Henry will be returning to our screens. Luckily, TV's are cheap right now, just in case you succumb to the temptation to smash up your existing one.

The Times should, in this instance, step up and take out its own rubbish.

I disagree on the basis that I believe Cox falls short of inciting racial hatred, rather that he panders to a large slice of society who thinks and reasons as he does.

Furthermore, I think it is a mistake to try to censor such ravings because the resulting disgruntlement amongst like-minded bigots does more harm to the fabric of society than allowing them to vent their intolerance. Give ’em enough rope I say!

Golly, it must be all of thirty years ago that I was discussing male feminists with a gay acquaintance. Like, whether it was possible to be one, followed by how does one spot one? Very easily, I was told, with all the assurance of one who had intimate knowledge of such things: they braid their unshaven underarm hair in the manner of Boy George's then-current hairstyle.

While I've retained that bit of potentially useful info, I've never had occasion to put it to practical use.

Which purports to present fact. The word "opinion" is not a magic incantation that fixes that. The Press Council has made it clear in decisions on drivel emitted by Paul Holmes and Michael Laws, that even opinion pieces should have regard to fact.

More to the point, the Waikato Times has voluntarily made itself subject to the findings of the Press Council and enjoys a certain stature as a consequence. It doesn't get to pick and choose once it has signed up.

If this does get to the Press Council, the worst that can happen is that the Times would be required, in line with the commitment it has chosen to make, to publish the council's decision.

The part of Anjum's request I have mixed feelings about is that the column be removed from the website. I'm generally keener on annotating such tosh with links to a rebuttal, but that's between Anjum and the editor for the time being.

Which purports to present fact. The word "opinion" is not a magic incantation that fixes that. The Press Council has made it clear in decisions on drivel emitted by Paul Holmes and Michael Laws, that even opinion pieces should have regard to fact.

There is a way to present all kinds of drivel as essential fact, it is called religion.

Critiquing abhorrent actions of people who profess to be carrying out a religious duty is hard. Those who carried out the action have done so as if it was divine will. Those who deplore the attack say it is plainly against the divine will.

To make a factual statement regarding the intent of a committed religious grouping is hard. You have to know the divine will. And that tends to be difficult.

Yeah but it only operates at the margins of society, and that’s where it will stay if we don’t suppress it with censorship. Much better to satirize their folly. Same goes for the rabid Pat Condels and Chris Hitchens of this world imo. (though much harder to satirize, especially the latter)